micheal moore......................lol

hell he is a socialist.i am not atall like like

acutually you are as you are talking like a socialist.

that money gone into other countries was not for that countries purpose but so that they could loot that country.

you thinking goes like this:

let 100 people die to save a 1000

your thinking is wrong cause you don't know how the problems arise.you don't look at the root but keep on debating on the result

"But I agree, let the world fend for themselves. Oh , America has made everything so bad. Then in 6 months after we become an isolationist country again, wait for them to say please come back out of your shell."


I agree if America listened to the world and become an isolationist country like during WW1 and WW2, I will imagine the US will blamed for sitting and doing nothing to stop evil in the world.

until now me & my family who live in syria lost 7 of our neibhors ! i watched a lot of videos where they kill people like animals and even they cut their heads like sheeps ! someone should stop this massacre or else i will lose my family too ! i coudnt sleep well this days thinking about what might happend to my family there if nobody stop this shit ! :(

I know it must be hard, but realistically there is little that can happen. The Arab League nations are either mired in their own problems (Egypt), or more worried about Iran than they are Syria. The Western powers would be willing only to provide air power, which would inevitably kill more innocent people and would still ultimately leave it up to the Syrian opposition to win the fight, so it would do little more than amplify the conflict in the short-run

Now that i think about it, Turkey is an option. They have the strength and conscientious objectors from the Syrian military seem to have been defecting to Turkey in the last few days. And Turkey has been looking to increase its muscle in the region...

i don't watch tv

also what do you mean you haven't been in that part of the country?

going there just jchanges the evil NATO?

stop comparing 2 evils and having th mindset of selecting lesser of the ones.YOU are from USA,you should very welll understand this thing by looking at your countries condition because of the same mindset.

if you are right,you should still give credence to others false view?..........................lmao

being one sided or two sided shouldn't have anything to do with it.if you are right you are right.

michael moore is a nutcase and has  absolute no clue what he keeps talking about.stop comparing me with that jackass

Nato shouldn't step in because of the usual accusations of imperialism we would get.

But I think the US and the Arab world should secretely arm the opposition in Syria. Kinda like liberated Libya is doing right now, donating $1 billion to the Syrian opposition and secretely training opposition militia.

The main reason Syria is getting so much attention in the Western media is because it's not exactly an ally of the West, it's allied to Iran, Hezbollah and Russia.

DR Congo where Western Multinationals were making a billions received next to no help, in fact opposition rebels were being paid protection money by these very same Corporations. Final death toll...wait for it- 5.4 MILLION!!! Pretty hypocritical of us to cry about Syria especially with Israel next door occupying Palestinian and Syrian land far the last 45years.

Arms are being smuggled in from neighbouring countries, Jihadist fighters are creeping in, NATO special forces probably already on the ground providing help, US surveillance drones and satellites flying overhead.....and then we have Russia and Iran supplying advanced arms and ammunition to the brutal sadistic regime for their own geo-political purposes....it's clear it's becoming one messy civil war.

What you guys have to remember is the regime in power is a minority Alawite sect. They are a branch of Shia Islam (Iran and Hezbollah are Shia) and compared to most Muslims quite secular (they celebrate Christmas and don't believe you have to pray five times a day for example). Being a minority they have granted Christian, Druze, Kurds and other minorities protection but the majority of the population is Sunni. When Bashar al-Assad father (Hafez al-Assad) first came to power in the 70's it was the first time the minority and historically oppressed Alawite sect actually had someone in power. In the 80's the (Sunni) Muslim Brotherhood in Syria staged a revolt in their stronghold of Hama. Hafez Al Assad basically flattened the entire city with deaths of upwards of 10,000. The Sunni majority never challenged the Alawite grip on power again until now that is.

Another point to consider is should NATO get involved it is likely to have to be unilateral without UN authorisation and not only that but the US would have to lead the way, there's no way Europe could do it using only their weapons at their disposal. The Libyan campaign brought up glaring deficiencies in European projection of power (had to rely on US support for logistics and surveillance). Libya had a united rebel army that controlled vast swathes of territory and Gadhaffi had a very dated air defence network plus it was open flat desert making bombing strikes much easier. Despite this it still took over 6 months to overthrow the regime.

Now picture Syria. Most of it's SAM network is old hat from the 70's and 80's but it's been fairly well maintained and is in far greater numbers than what Libya had with overlapping layers of defence PLUS it has some very modern air defence equipment too that were bought from Russia over the last few years. Coupled with a more hilly terrain which complicates targeting and a more urban environment meaning collateral damage will be higher than it was in Libya and your looking at a more drawn out conflict that without an Army could take a long while. The rebels aren't too united anyway with only pockets of cities under their limited control and also Sunni Jihadists have gotten involved (Syria helped out in the fight against Al Qaeda post 9/11).

they already did arm rebellion in syria

israeli weapons were found,West media is blaming syria but they are the ones that started the killing in syria.

Libya wasn't a liberation,it was just a regime change.

How would force help?

I agree it's an atrocity, but force will only make it worse. Not to mention anything from the West will give Iran the perfect excuse to do just about anything.

Help won't come from Arab nations. Unfortunately, many are run by corrupt dictatorships who probably sympathise with the Syrian leaders. Why would, say, Saudi Arabia fight for liberty in Syria when they refuse it at home?

The fact of the matter is, the Syrian government's days are numbered. You won't be able to quell this violence, too many people have lost their friends, fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, already. The people of Syria will never let this go.

Well technically if you think the UN serves western interests more then not you could always consider Kosovo and Taiwain allies, well and Vatican city.  just nitpicking though.

As for Syria.  Considering the results of the most recent arab revolutions... it's hard to get people invested even if there was anyone who had the time and money to waste.

The arab nations have no real reason to kick out there friend so....